Winning Sample

    • OoT4NKoO
      OoT4NKoO
      Bronze
      Joined: 01.10.2012 Posts: 92
      Good morning,

      I have read a lot of articles about being a winning player over a certain sample size all with different opinions. What do you guys think? How many hands would you say you need to play at a level to say you are beating it? I should imagine this has a varied outcome dependent on whether you play micro/low/medium/high stakes etc.

      I ask because I am currently playing NL16 with a winrate of ~15bb/100 over a small sample of 10,000 hands. I don't think this is enough hands to declare myself as a winning player yet, but it means I am doing something right. I now have 30 BI's for NL25 but feel I have not established myself at NL16 yet, I feel I would be better off playing another 10,000-20,000 hands at NL16 to get a better grasp of where I am at, this will only take me a couple of weeks to achieve.

      Any advice will be appreciated...

      T4NK
  • 4 replies
    • Alan883
      Alan883
      Bronze
      Joined: 03.12.2008 Posts: 1,941
      Hello OoT4NKoO,

      my personal opinion is that NL25 is actually easier to beat than NL16. Fishes like to bet to rounded number and not to 0.48, 0.32 and so. Also it takes quite a bit to calculate 3 bets and 4 bets and so on.

      If i am not mistaken there are also more players at NL25 than Nl16.

      Regarding being a winning player 10k hands is really small sample. But as you said probably you are doing something right. If you have big enough BR i suggest you to take a shot at NL25. I play currently at NL25 and if i will have to drop i will play NL10 and not NL16 anymore.

      Good luck.
    • donut10
      donut10
      Bronze
      Joined: 05.01.2011 Posts: 91
      I think Alan makes v.good points here.

      Fishes like to bet to rounded number and not to 0.48, 0.32 and so. Also it takes quite a bit to calculate 3 bets and 4 bets and so on.


      Kind of agree with this, remember very old 2p2 threads stating that 3/6 was the dead zone at mid stakes because fish preferred to play at rounded numbers (i.e. 5/10 instead) think this could possibly apply to this situation.?

      What do you guys think? How many hands would you say you need to play at a level to say you are beating it?


      I'd say around 100k hands is good but it definitely depends on win rate (variance is proportional to win rate) but probably less hands at micros where win rate is usually higher, but even then you could win at 10bb/100 over 1m hands and be potentially breakeven over 100k sample, VARIANCE IS SICK!.

      10k hands is small sample but non the less your winrate over this sample is promising and should you should use it to boost your confidence, establishing yourself at NL16 over a large sample sounds good but I think given the situation you should just take shots at NL25. You want to spend least time at microstakes as possible because of high rake/perXamountof hands,so IMO if you grind up to 35 buyin, take 5 buyin (minimum) shots at NL25 that is the best course of action, if you're comfortable with that
    • ProfitsofDoom
      ProfitsofDoom
      Basic
      Joined: 29.08.2012 Posts: 177
      I know from using Leakbuster they suggest a minimum sample fo 50k hands to get the most accurate stats, so i'm assuming it may be similar for winrate. I've heard some people suggest 100k hands to get an iidea of your true winrate.
    • Tomaloc
      Tomaloc
      Bronze
      Joined: 17.01.2011 Posts: 6,858
      about 1 million. in that time your style and opponents might have changed so another 1 million is recommended

      now well, seriously, if you feel that you are ahead of the competition and got a decent bankroll to endure a shot at the next limit, just do it... the worst thing that can happen is that you lose a few buy-ins and have to move down again.